Advocates Fight Gun-Immunity Bill
5/27/2003

     
 
Email

Print

Subscribe



Arguing against a gun-immunity bill now before the U.S. Senate, gun-control advocates say its passage would hurt victims of violence such as those in last fall's Washington, D.C. area sniper shootings, the St. Joseph News-Press reported May 15.

The bill, which is backed by President Bush and the National Rifle Association (NRA), would protect gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits stemming from the criminal or unlawful use of their products.

Senate Democrats are trying to delay the legislation, which has 52 cosponsors in the Senate. Several of the bill's cosponsors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, have received substantial campaign contributions during the last election from the NRA and other gun-rights organizations.

For instance, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) received $8,950, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) received $3,500, Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) received $9,900, and Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) received $1,000.

[B]Sixty votes would be needed to block a Democratic filibuster. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who is against the bill, said Democrats may also try to add amendments that would close the gun show waiting-period loophole, include safety-lock language, and tighten criminal background checks.[/B]

"I just hope this Congress doesn't bow down to the raw political power the NRA exhibits," Reed said.

The bill has already passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a 285-140 vote.


CRC

if the bereaved are suing Bushmaster, then wtf aren't they suing chevrolet too?

Or boeing,...
Or Jack Daniels...

Or Ford
Or Dodge
Or Coors
Or Bud
Or any other evil group of productive companys.

Like you or your party haven't prostituted yourself at anytime for any organization or "special interest group", Senator?

What a fucking hypocrite.

[img]defendliberty.com/pics/bushgun.jpg[/img]
Woo hoo!

Leave it to Imbro to lay the blame for the threat of a Democrat filibuster & "poison pill" amendments at the feet of GWB.

Hey Imbro, your pony called. She wants her trick back. [;D]  

[b]"I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."[/b]- GWB, St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

Those aren't poison pills at all, as evidenced by the statements made by the president of our great democracy, there would room for compromise.

I believe compromises was the reason for ordinary citizens NOT being able to own machine guns courtesy of "Red" Ted Kennedy.

Serious question: How is requiring that a trigger lock be sold with a handgun a bad thing? Kinda like the manual that comes with a new gun. You bought the gun you should get a little manual with it. If you don't want it, toss it. Is there a slippery slope I'm missing here?

Don't you have a hole to crawl back into? Your stuff was cute for a while and I understand that it is the ultimate in sarcasm, but jeez it gets really old after a while. A LONG while.

I agree, there isnt a law [u]YET[/u] that is making you have the lock on at all times when the gun is not in use.

Guns, locks and the DPRK…

In the DPRK an approved cable lock is required if you don't have an approved lockbox or safe.  If you have an approved lock box you must show a receipt for it at the time of purchase.  If you have an approved safe you must sign an affidavit at the time of purchase.

If you don't have an approved safe or lockbox you must purchase an approved cable lock at the time of sale or present one with a receipt showing you bought it within the past 30 days.  No receipt or receipt over 30 days old and the lock is not acceptable (even if it's a "approved" one) and you have to buy one.

Only exception is if the gun manufacture has included a California approved cable lock with the firearm.  There are specific approved locking devices that must be sold/provided by the purchaser for each weapon authorized for sale in the DPRK. [url] http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/fsdcertlist.htm[/url]

This for both handguns and long guns.  Obviously if you’re buying a rifle or shotgun and only have a lockbox you’re SOL and have to get the cable lock.

On several guns I’ve bought, the manufactures lock wasn’t approved so I had to shell out another $5.00.  I’ve got a box full of cable locks now that I have a safe.

If I had moved here with a non-approved safe, I’d have to buy an approved cable lock for each gun until I got a California DOJ approved safe.

In other words the lock isn’t about safety, it’s about adding another paperwork and financial burden on the gun-owner to discourage them and creating another law to break should the gun be misused.

If they use the “California model” for this (as history has shown they like to do with so many things) it’s going to be a major pain in the ass.

I'm for instant background checks; repeal the Brady law, and leave it at instant easy background checks everywhere.

I'm also infavor of gun locks.  Why anyone would want to ban such an item is a mystery to me.  Don't like 'em?  Don't use 'em!

I'll trade a background check and gun lock bill for the repeal of '94 and '89!

A locked gun is as useful as a basebal bat.

If you want one, fine.  Don't be telling me that I have to have one too.